Running on a platform including Medicare for All and free public education, democratic socialist Summer Lee defeated her Democratic establishment-backed opponent Paul Costa in Pennsylvania's 34th State House District. (Photo: Nathan Shaulis/Summer for PA)

Defying national and state-level Democratic establishment forces that have worked to crowd out left-wing candidates and demonstrating that there is a deep hunger among the American electorate for a bold progressive agenda, candidates running on platforms of Medicare for All, free college, and a living wage emerged victorious in several state primaries on Tuesday and tore through the boundaries of what is conventionally considered politically feasible.

"They said it wasn't possible without institutional support. That we couldn't talk about Medicare for All, a living wage, about ending corruption in Harrisburg. And you know what we did instead? We built something." —Sara Innamorato, Pennsylvania State House candidate

"It feels like a monumental shift," Arielle Cohen, co-chair of Pittsburgh Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), told the Huffington Post after four DSA-backed candidates defeated establishment Democrats in Pennsylvania. "We won on popular demands that were deemed impossible. We won on healthcare for all; we won on free education."

Running in Pennsylvania's State House Districts 34 and 21 respectively, Summer Lee and Sara Innamorato—both running on platforms consisting of Medicare for All, strong environmental protection, and campaign finance reform—toppled what local news outlets described as a "political dynasty" by trouncing Democratic cousins Paul Costa and Dom Costa by a wide margin.

"They said it wasn't possible without institutional support. That we couldn't talk about Medicare for All, a living wage, about ending corruption in Harrisburg," Innamorato said during her victory party Tuesday night. "And you know what we did instead? We built something."

"The story is that the Costa cousins lost, but who they lost to, just as signifigant.

Signs of the grassroots progressive wave that some predicted will ultimately sweep across the country could also be seen in Idaho on Tuesday, where progressive Paulette Jordan handily defeated her establishment-backed Democratic opponent A.J. Balukoff in a bid to become the nation's first Native American governor.

"Today's elections prove movement politics candidates, who rely on people power, can win, and win powerfully," Ryan Greenwood, director of Movement Politics for People's Action, said in a statement on Wednesday. "Candidates for public office who commit to a racial and gender justice agenda that puts people and our planet before profits are winning."

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License

February 19, 2018

James Woolsey, the CIA Director from 1993 to 1995, addressed questions on that point, admitting that the US has interfered in elections in the past, but “only for a very good cause,” and when they thought rigging the vote would benefit democracy.

“It was for the good of the system,” Woolsey insisted. Researchers suggest the US interfered in elections at least 81 times since World War 2, far more often than Russia. Some analysts are arguing that the two are not equivalent, however, because the US meddling was “pro-democracy” in intent.

Well, meddling in elections is, well, meddling in elections. The US is capable of considerable hypocrisy, but this takes the cake. They are all irate about Russia using social media in the same way American hatemongers like Alex Jones and Rush Limbaugh use it, while never admitting that in addition to "meddling", the US has also overthrown democratically elected foreign governments.

Antiwar.com reports: "Yet a casual look at CIA involvement in regime changes shows myriad times when US interference involved ousting democratically elected governments, often by orchestrating coups, to prop up regimes seen more favorable to US interests. In the 1950s, this included regime change in Iran to support BP oil profits, and one in Guatemala for United Fruit Company."

So our democratic values amount to the argument that "we are the good guys, and they're not." What kind of values are those? Basically the kind that, far from making the world safe for democracy, make the world safe for commercial exploitation by American corporations and those of our allies. This is taking hypocrisy to a new level. Are these the values we want our children to live by? Matthew 7:5 says, according to the World English Bible translation:

You hypocrite! First remove the beam out of your own eye, and then you can see clearly to remove the speck out of your brother’s eye.

In moves celebrated by progressives as further evidence that grassroots pressure on the Democratic Party to ditch corporate cash is having an impact, two senators—Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) and Cory Booker (D-N.J.)—pledged on Tuesday to no longer accept corporate PAC donations.

"Our movement has shown that you can't expect to be a leader of the Democratic Party if you're going to keep taking money from Wall Street banks and large corporations." —Justice Democrats

In making this pledge, Gillibrand and Booker joined a small group of their Senate colleagues—Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Maria Cantwell (D-Was.), and Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.)—who have already sworn off corporate PAC money.

"I will no longer accept donations from corporate PACs," Gillibrand announced in a video posted on Twitter Tuesday. "We really need to make every effort we can to get rid of the corporate money and dark money that is flowing into politics, and my effort to ban corporate PAC checks is just a first step in that direction."

Booker also made his announcement through Twitter, writing that decision was a result of discussions with constituents.

I heard from constituents today asking about corporate PAC contributions. I'm joining several of my colleagues & no longer accepting these contributions. Our campaign finance system is broken. I thank @StopBigMoney for their work—it’s time to pass campaign finance reform.

Responding to the senators' announcements on Tuesday, the progressive group Justice Democrats attributed the growing trend of candidates and incumbents refusing corporate cash to the burgeoning grassroots desire for a campaign finance system that elevates the voice of the public, not massive corporations.

"Our movement has shown that you can't expect to be a leader of the Democratic Party if you're going to keep taking money from Wall Street banks and large corporations," Justice Democrats wrote on Twitter, tagging other senators who have not yet vowed to reject corporate money. "This is a sign that we are transforming the Democratic Party. Keep pushing. Don't stop."

As the campaign finance reform group End Citizens United (ECU) observed in a statement on Tuesday, Booker and Gillibrand are part of a "growing trend of candidates across the country who are pledging to refuse corporate PAC money," including Rep. Beto O’Rourke (D-Texas), who is vying to unseat Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) in 2018, and Randy Bryce, who is challenging House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.).

"Americans' faith in the government is at an all-time low, with more than 90 percent believing the government is working for the benefit of a few special interests," ECU noted. "A robust reform agenda would help end the outsized influence special interests has on our politicians and helps build trust with constituents. ECU has found that 62 percent of Americans believe that a candidate who refuses to accept corporate PAC money is a sign that the candidate is serious about reform."

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License

February 12, 2018

Some people are all concerned that Russia is going to hack the next election and there's nothing we can do about it. Much hand wringing and nail biting. What are we going to do? Put more sanctions on Russia? There is a simple solution: go back to paper ballots. They're unhackable. Whoever thought that the internet was the solution to all of our problems was just dead wrong. The internet has created as many problems as it's solved. It's left the electric grid hackable. It's left major corporations including banks hackable.

I think some people refuse to entertain the thought that just maybe the ways things were done 50 years ago was superior to the way they are being done today. Paper ballots worked for hundreds of years. They would still work now. Let's just decide to use them and then get on with our business. Someday when a more robust internet and computer system is available, maybe then would be the time to convert to electronic ballots. Until then the way they did it in the olden times will work just fine.

American politicians and media seem to agonize for hours over scandals and stuff while never talking about the solutions to problems or even getting around to discussing the problems themselves. The latest distraction is the sexual harassment imbroglio. They spend hours discussing it. It is only second to the "if it bleeds, it leads" news mantra. At least on Meet the Press yesterday, Peggy Noonan had the guts to come right out and say the solution to the Russian hacking scenario was "paper ballots." So why don't they just do it and get on with other business?

All these things that Americans thought were so great like the internal combustion engine, we're now finding out are killing the environment. Nobody wants to go back to the horse and buggy days, but horses and buggies were sure a lot better for the environment. All this progress that America is so famous for in many cases has only contributed to screwing up the planet. Corporations dump toxic waste creating profits by not paying for these "externalities."

We need to figure out ways to live together in peace and so that everyone has an adequate standard of living. The American values of competition and developing the next greatest gadget and widget in order to keep the economy growing is something that needs to change. We need to upgrade our values and see the world in a different way. Environmental protection and eliminating poverty are paramount.

November 22, 2017

Hundreds of thousands of Americans are being denied the right to vote because they are poor.

In nine states, Republican legislators have enacted laws that disenfranchise anyone with outstanding legal fees or court fines. For example, in Alabama more than 100,000 people who owe money – roughly 3 percent of the state’s voting-age population – have been struck from voting rolls.

This is unconstitutional. In 1964, the 24th amendment abolished the poll tax, a Jim Crow tactic used to bar poor blacks from voting.

These new laws are a modern reincarnation of that unconstitutional system, disproportionately disenfranchising people of color.

Income and wealth should have no bearing on the right to vote. Many Americans are struggling to make ends meet. But they still have a constitutional right to make their voices heard.

Preventing people from voting because they owe legal fees or court fines muzzle low-income Americans at a time in our nation’s history when the rich have more political power than ever.

These state laws are another form of voter suppression – like gerrymandering, voter ID requirements, and bars on anyone with felony convictions from voting.

October 14, 2017

The Democrat brand is tired and worn out. Many people would not vote Democratic just on principle no matter what they offered. They want something new and exciting and different. That's why a lot of them voted for Trump. So this is what I propose to put a Progressive in the White House. Start a third party with a spiffy new name that seems fresh and different. Get a celebrity/entertainer to run for President. Someone, say, like Steven Colbert who spends the first 15 minutes of the Late Show 5 times a week excoriating President Trump so you know his heart is in the right place.

The Democrats should also put up their best candidate, say, someone like Andtrew Cuomo or Elizabeth Warren. Since American election periods are so long, like they start campaigning a year before the election, It should be fairly obvious 4 or 6 months out who has the best chance. Then both parties should join forces under the same banner even if they have to at that point combine parties into a new second party. What they don't want to do is to have three parties running in the general election. That would only split the vote between the two leftist parties. So before the general election there would only be two candidates running for President, one from the Republican party and one from the combination of the Democratic party and the new third party perhaps under a completely new party name

This way you avoid the situation that Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders were in. They mostly represented the same ideals, but they were forced to compete against each other because that is how the primary season works. By combining parties before the primary season would otherwise end, you avoid the situation where you have two good people competing against each other. By uniting long before the general election instead of after the normal primary season ends, forces are joined long before the general election.

I believe the platform of this new combined party should be basically Bernie Sanders platform i.e. an economic platform: free public college, free universal health care, major spending for infrastructure and tax the rich to pay for it. Thus the appeal is to the middle class primarily. Progressives should stay away from identity politics or at least downplay it. The majority is interested in their own economic betterment, not in helping some faction or other which is in distress. Sorry, but that is just the way it is.

American politics has entered a new phase. The same ol same ol is not good enough. Donald Trump proved this if nothing else. Trump is in the process of destroying the Republican party. Hillary, despite good intentions, did as much for the tired old Democratic brand. The American people are ready for something new and exciting, something that Bernie Sanders started, something that benefits the average middle class person and not just the large corporations and their lobbyists.

September 28, 2017

MUST BE SEEN In Context Of GERMANY’s EXCELLENT PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION SYSTEM

by Frank Thomas

The recent German elections show that, since the arrival of over 1.2 million refugees (mostly from Syria) in 2015 and 2016, Germany is indeed changing to the right – but I certainly would not say in a radical or unhealthy way. This is because EU economies and political proportional representation systems, like Germany’s, generally combine stable elements of basic social needs and safety nets with individual/corporate capitalistic initiatives and market mechanisms. Rules are enacted and enforced to insure fair play and social harmony.

In the German elections, the CDU/CSU centrist coalition together with the SPD socialist party went from a very high 502 Parliamentary seats or 79.7% of the 630 seats, BEFORE the elections, to a lower total of 399 seats or 56.3% of 709 Parliamentary seats now. In light of the SPD’s decision not to join Merkel’s CDO/CSU centrist party group in a new coalition government, Merkel must find a way to unite, for example, with the Green left of center party and FDP right of center party to form a reasonably centrist coalition government. Although the rising AfD rather conservative nationalistic party won 12.6% of the total vote for all parties, making it the 3rd largest party followed closely by the FDP party with 10.7% of the total vote, Merkel will not be forming a coalition government with this far right party.

Forming a governing coalition will be no easy task. But Merkel will respect the clear voter message of getting disciplined control of and cutting back drastically on her open-door immigration policy. The extraordinary extent and speed at which the flood of refugees have entered Germany under Merkel’s leadership is creating considerable societal strains, e.g. severe problems of assimilation as well as fears of expanding criminality and terrorist acts, and a watering down of the German culture. Very understandable and natural concerns, in my view.

But I don’t think Germany is heading into a radical, socially-polarizing, ultra-right transition under their multi-party, proportional representation system. This is because as noted earlier, there are many structural “checks and balances” inherent in the European political multi-party, proportional representation constitutional structures. Far more than the paralyzed two-party Mess the US is trapped in where “social polarization” is evolving on a scale and depth many, many times more alarming and potentially dangerous to our democracy than most EU countries.

November 17, 2016

Bernie, like Trump, tended to make absolute statements without regard to whether or not they could ever be implemented under current political conditions. He said "Make college free at public colleges and universities." Period. Hillary would qualify and nuance her statements about free tuition like "make it affordable" or "make it free for every family making less than X amount of dollars." Trump just made absolute statements whether or not they could be supported by the reality of political conditions or even the laws of physics. Bernie tended to do this too. With a Republican Congress there was no way Bernie would ever have been able to implement free college tuition. The lesson is Make Bold Statements; leave the fine print till later.

Bernie Gave Them Meat and Potatoes; Hillary Wanted Them to Eat Their Broccoli

Bernie was adamantly anti-Wall Street. Hillary wanted to preserve the status quo, and that meant keeping Wall Street in charge of the world's financial system. Bernie said "Tax the rich." Very simple, forthright and straightforward statement. Hillary could not bring herself to make such a statement. She had to put limits on it while all the time Trump was making absolute statements whether or not he could ever deliver the goods. He didn't care. He was all about getting himself elected and knew he couldn't be held responsible for anything he said in a court of law. He also knew that with a Republican Congress he had a far greater chance of getting his campaign promises implemented than Hillary would have had despite the fact that he pissed off a lot of Republicans. They would come around when they realized that the Big Enchilada - US tax policy - was the same for them and Trump which was and is to give huge tax breaks to the wealthy and a mess of pottage to everyone else. Red blooded Americans would be grateful to get a few crumbs from the table, and Republicans would sell it to them with all their considerable skill. They've been doing it for years.

Bernie and Trump Railed Against Free Trade; Hillary Was For It

Hillary wanted to "modify" US trade policy. Again too nuanced. She should have demonized US trade policy as Trump and Bernie did. But wait - wasn't free trade the policy her husband implemented by signing off on NAFTA? You bet. Hillary wanted to "improve" things not do away with her husband's legacy completely nor did she want to do away with Obama's policies either. She was for TTP before she was against it. Not too convincing. She was too much of a pragmatist. The time for being pragmatic is after you've won the election, not before.

Hillary Was Too Tied to the Meritocracy

She believed all those smart guys like Lloyd Blankfein and Jamie Diamond were keeping the world economy functioning from their catbird seats on Wall Street. She just wanted them to keep on doing what they were doing while cleaning up their act around the edges. Besides wasn't that so nice of them to give her very generous amounts of money to do a 15 minute speech?

Bernie wanted to break up the big banks and put bankers in jail for their crimes. Trump said almost nothing about the fraudulent activities of the big banks. The only person he wanted to put in jail was Hillary. Those fires had already been stoked for him by hate talk radio for the eight years of the Obama administration. He just fanned the flames for a ready made audience. The chieftains of Wall Street were meritocrats just like Hillary. They were smart people. Remember it was Bill Clinton who signed the laws deregulating Wall Street leading directly to the 2008 financial crisis. Ohmagod, I guess Hillary was tied too directly to him!

Too bad she retained too much loyalty to the Obama administration having been a major part of it. Obamacare had been railed against by hate talk radio for eight years. It had been eviscerated and compromised from its very outset by pharmaceutical corporation lobbyists who won the right to raise prices at will.

Obama thought he had to compromise in order to get anything passed. He gave up the public option in order to get Republicans on board. He gave in to Republicans and gave up some of the best features of what might have been a pretty good system. Instead it was fatally flawed from the very beginning, and Republicans relentlessly attacked it from Day 1.

Bernie Voted Against the Iraq War; Hillary Voted For It

Hillary has been a hawk on foreign policy perhaps because she wants to prove that, even though she's a woman, she's as tough as a man in that regard. Her record on Libya, despite Benghazi, is not good either. It was the wrong thing to do to take out Gaddafi as subsequent events have shown. Bernie is dedicated to not fighting wars which have nothing to do with our vital interests. Obama and Hillary should never have gotten involved in either Syria or Libya. Obama was on the right track when he ended the Iraq war or so he thought. Subsequent events have shown that trying to end a war in that part of the world is next to impossible. That's why we should never have taken out Saddam Hussein or started the Iraq war, but that was George W Bush's fault. He opened a can of worms and lied us into that war because he wanted to be a war time President. Obama did his best to end it, but the best laid plans of mice and men don't always work out.

Hillary Should Have Trumped Trump on Infrastructure

Now Trump wants to spend a lot of money on infrastructure, something the Democrats have wanted for years. The Republican Congress wouldn't let them. Now, ironically, Trump has a good chance to get 'er done since he has both Houses of Congress with him. However, he will do it the Republican way - make it profitable for investors including selling off infrastructure to private interests. Privatizing the interstates, for example, and turning them into toll roads.

It would have been almost impossible for Hillary, but that shouldn't have stopped her from making the unqualified statement, "I will spend a trillion dollars on infrastructure and thus create jobs." Instead she let Trump trump her ace. Bernie was more convincing because he played Trump's game and made unqualified and unnuanced statements about what he would do without regard to the chances related to dealing with a Republican Congress who probably would have filibustered every initiative Bernie made had he become President.

"Build a Wall." No matter how complex or ill advised was the real world feasibility of this project, Trump didn't let that stop him. Hillary and the Democrats had a more nuanced policy, more if's as's and wherefore's. This hurt them. Too lawyerly. Hillary should have made it clear that she would not tolerate illegal immigration and stopped at that. Again what they did after the election might have been completely different. There wouldn't have been any legal repercussions for that. The Dems could have taken this issue away from Trump or at least nullified it in the minds of the voters, but it was a lost opportunity because of the complexity of the issue and the Dems wanting to do the right thing instead of the thing that would have gotten them elected. They need to be more Machiavellian and not quite so honest. They need to appeal to the mainstream more.

Trump Uttered the Words 'Radical Islamic Terrorism'; Hillary Wouldn't

Yes, there is such a thing, but prominent Democrats would not even say the words although challenged to do so many times. You got the feeling that Hillary and President Obama were more concerned with not hurting Muslims' feelings than assuaging most Americans' fears. Donald Trump had a very simple, albeit oversimplified, and comprehensable approach to this issue. Hillary did not. Again more nuanced, more bending over backwards to be inclusive.

The Dems could not even condemn Wahhabism, that branch of Islam that teaches that it's OK to kill Christians and Jews which originates in Saudi Arabia, the US' chief ally in the Middle East. That hypocrisy is at the heart of the American disingenuous policy toward the Muslim world. Fifteen of the nineteen 9/11 hijackers were Saudi citizens. The Democrats also failed to condemn Sharia law which represents a total violation of human rights including the rights of women.

January 19, 2016

The Republican political arena has become the theater of the absurd largely thanks to the emergence of Donald Trump as the new standard bearer of the Republican Party. He has stood all the rules on their heads and made a mockery out of political correctness. Somehow this has breathed fresh air into the stodgy world of Republican memes and mantras.

For example, let's take the birther controversy which the Donald was a big part of a few years ago when he and others made an attempt to prove that President Obama was not a "natural born citizen" as required by the Constitution in order to be President. In fact, as Trump and others maintained, Obama was born in Kenya. Turns out not to be true.

Then enter Ted Cruz and The Donald is up to his old tricks maintaining that Cruz is not a natural born citizen since he was born in Canada. Makes sense since, if Obama had actually been born in Kenya, there would be no doubt that he was not a "natural born citizen" even though he was born to an American citizen mother which no one disputes. Cruz maintains that, since his mother is a "natural born citizen" he is also regardless of what country he was born in. It seems that the birther problem, although not pertaining to Obama, in fact does pertain to Cruz. How ironic! But then leave it to Trump to point out the obvious and destroy a political opponent in the process.

Donald Trump is actually right about something: Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) is not a natural-born citizen and therefore is not eligible to be president or vice president of the United States.

The Constitution provides that “No person except a natural born Citizen . . . shall be eligible to the Office of President.” The concept of “natural born” comes from common law, and it is that law the Supreme Court has said we must turn to for the concept’s definition. On this subject, common law is clear and unambiguous. The 18th-century English jurist William Blackstone, the preeminent authority on it, declared natural-born citizens are “such as are born within the dominions of the crown of England,” while aliens are “such as are born out of it.” The key to this division is the assumption of allegiance to one’s country of birth. The Americans who drafted the Constitution adopted this principle for the United States. James Madison, known as the “father of the Constitution,” stated, “It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. . . . [And] place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States.”

For that matter John McCain, the Republican who ran for President in 2008, was not a natural born citizen either. He was born on a military base in Panama. The Constitution does not make an exception for military bases, and they certainly are not a part of the territorial United States. Democrats shouldn't hesitate to attack Republicans on this issue especially since Republicans created so much misery about it for Barack Obama.

Since You Brought it up Republicans ...

If Cruz ends up being the Republican nominee, it would be up to Hillary or Bernie to make the birther case against Cruz. They would have to do it or they would be remiss in their duty. If they have to sue, let the suit begin. Republicans have no hesitancy about suing Democrats.

Remember George W Bush suing Al Gore and in the process becoming President even though Gore won the election. And Gore was too nice stepping aside "for the good of the country." Then look what happened. Bush lied us into war, took out Saddam Hussein and cast the whole middle east into turmoil with the result that ISIS is casting the whole western world into turmoil, not to mention hundreds of thousands dead and millions of refugees. "The good of the country"? I don't think so.

For nearly 10 years, thousands of conservatives have openly claimed President Obama is not an American citizen. With no evidence at all, they have regularly claimed that instead of being born in Hawaii, he was actually born in Kenya or even Indonesia, to his American mother and African father.

What’s wild is that the true story of Cruz — the one supported by him and by the facts — is actually the exact same fictional story that the birther movement has claimed for 10 years disqualifies Obama from being president.

On Dec. 22, 1970, Ted Cruz was actually born in a foreign country — Canada — to an American mother, Eleanor Darragh, and a father, Rafael Cruz, who was not an American citizen.

His father, born and raised in Cuba, actually did not become an American citizen until 2005. When Ted Cruz was born, his parents weren’t visiting Canada or working on a military base — they had lived there for years.

Now since there is doubt that a Republican running for President is a "natural born citizen," conservatives have their panties all in a wad to redefine what actually is a "natural born citizen." In other words their hypocrisy over this issue is written all over their faces. They unshamefacedly assert that, while Obama is not a natural born citizen since he was born in Kenya to an American mother, Ted Cruz is a natural born citizen since he was born in Canada to an American mother. I guess it has to do more with the fact that Canada is a predominantly white near neighbor to the US while Kenya is thousands of miles away and is predominantly black.

So while conservatives are willing to twist the words of the Constitution when their ox is being gored, they will in no way allow any such twisting regarding the Second Amendment. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Well, what does that actually mean?

One interpretation would be that the right to bear arms should only be in the context of a well regulated militia. The militias extant these days are anything but well regulated. Therefore, the right of the people to bear arms necessarily needs to be infringed. Besides in 1776, they didn't have semi-automatic or full automatic weapons. Let the people's right not be infringed when it comes to the weaponry they had in 1776, but the weapons available today are definitely infringable. Conservatives are willing to twist and bend the Constitution when their interests are at stake, but are original constructionists when it's in their interests to maintain wording which in no way is applicable to todays' realities.

Donald Trump and The Wall

One of the most humorous Trump originated issues is the building of The Wall which infuriates the Left and gets cheers from the Right. The absurdity of the situation is that there is a wall already there. Has anyone been to San Ysidro lately? Looks like a wall to me. But all the Yahoo followers of Donald Trump don't already know this. They think it's possible just to walk back and forth across the Mexican American border at will, and Trump doesn't discourage them from thinking this. In fact he maintains that he'll even get Mexico to pay for The Wall. It led to one of the funniest skits on Saturday Night Live when Trump was hosting. In comes the Mexican President with a large Publishers Clearing House style check for The Donald and he says, "Here this is for The Wall."

Now since progressives are supposedly smarter than Trump's followers, why are they so upset over this issue when it is really a non-issue? Sure there are gaps in the wall. It isn't continuous along the whole Mexican American border, but it's there in one form or other along much of it so why is this even an issue? Bush signed the Secure Fence Act of 2006. Work has been underway ever since. By April 2009 Homeland Security had erected about 613 miles of new pedestrian fencing and vehicle barriers along the southwest border from California to Texas. This was during the Obama administration I might add.

To be accurate, Trump should have said, "I will complete the wall along the border," but this wouldn't have the same hyperbolic affect that stating the issue in such stark terms has. Nuances are not The Donald's strong suit. Or maybe they are for the effect he intends to achieve.

In the final analysis The Wall is a fig newton of Trump's imagination calculated to get his supporters cheering and make his detractors apoplectic. This issue is a pure contrivance calculated to rile up and antagonize on the one hand and to pander to people's fears on the other. It's a litmus test to see how your knee jerk reaction defines you as a progressive or a conservative and ignores the reality of what actually is.

Sure a wall could be built or more accurately the gaps could be filled in. Some say it would be prohibitively expensive at $30 billion. That's a fraction of what's being spent on the military-industrial complex which sucks in a trillion or more each and every year. The issue is just a non issue as advanced surveillance systems are already being used at the border and are being expanded and improved each year. Are progressives saying that the "wall" as it already exists should be taken down? I don't think so. Donald is right that every country has the right to protect its borders from encroachment.

Donald Trump and Anchor Babies

While Trump thinks that Cruz is not a natural born citizen since he was born in Canada, he also thinks that babies born in America are not American citizens if their parents are not.

Donald Trump says his plan to roll back birthright citizenship for children of illegal immigrants will pass constitutional muster because "many of the great scholars say that anchor babies are not covered."

"Many of the great scholars" -- really? That comment caught our attention.

In case you need a refresher on birthright citizenship: As it stands now, any person born on U.S. soil is a citizen -- regardless of the parents’ immigration status -- because of the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment. Trump has recently advocated for pulling back citizenship for illegal immigrants’ children. Some, like Trump, refer to these children as "anchor babies."

"The parents have to come in legally," Trump said, talking to reporters in New Hampshire Aug. 19. "Now we’re going to have to find out what’s going to happen from a court standpoint. But many people, many of the great scholars say that anchor babies are not covered (by the 14th Amendment). We’re going to have to find out."

Considering that about 300,000 babies are born to illegal immigrants and become citizens every year, we wondered if Trump is right to say that "many" scholars think this isn’t necessarily a constitutional right.

We won’t dig into who’s a "great" scholar, but we will look at how widespread this position is and if "many" say the 14th Amendment isn’t an impediment to Trump’s plan.

The 14th Amendment became part of the Constitution in 1868 following the Civil War. The amendment established birthright citizenship and equal protection under the law for all citizens, making newly freed slaves full American citizens.

The relevant clause reads: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

Today, this clause is widely understood to mean that the Constitution requires that everyone born on U.S. soil -- regardless of parents’ citizenship -- is automatically an American citizen. We polled a number of experts in immigration law, and each one told us that this is the mainstream view among legal scholars, without question.

"We're going to have to find out," no Muslims entering the US "till we find out what's going on," "many scholars say...", Trump has a way of always qualifying his hyperbole in such a way as to make it sound more reasonable.

It seems that, although Trump may be right about Ted Cruz, he has his head up his ass regarding anchor babies unless you want to change the Constitution. And if you're going to change the Constitution, you might as well change the outdated and dangerous Second Amendment as well to be in line with today's realities regarding guns. Something along the lines of "... a citizen has no absolute right to gun ownership except those guns that were available when the Constitution was signed ..."

So according to Trump, if you're born in Canada, you're not a natural born American citizen, and if you're born in the US, you're not an American citizen either if your parents were not American citizens. How ironic that the birther issue resurfaces at this time to come back and bite Republicans in the ass! Politics really does make strange bedfellows.

March 14, 2011

With the stroke of a pen Republican Governor Scott Walker of Wisconsin ended collective bargaining rights for workers in Wisconsin. How is it possible that 50 years worth of hard fought for rights can be ended with the stroke of a pen? Well, the Republicans control both houses of the bicameral legislature and the Governorship in Wisconsin. They can do whatever they want. If tomorrow they wanted to sell off state owned assets to their cronies, they could do it. In fact that's already in the budget bill that they're getting ready to pass next. The only reason that any of this has even come to national attention is that the 14 Democratic Senators, one of whose prescence was required to establish a quorum, left the state so that the original budget bill couldn't be passed. Now that they're back, Republicans have their quorum and can proceed to pass whatever they want. If tomorrow they want to pass a bill declaring that the moon is made of green Wisconsin cheese, they can do it.

These same battles are being fought out in every state in which Republicans have control of the political structure - namely, Ohio, Michigan, Florida and New Jersey among others. Voters, are you happy now? Governor Walker's bill also gives power over the state's Medicaid system known as BadgerCare to a political appointee taking it away from the legislature where it currently resides. Poor people kiss your health care good-bye in the state of Wisconsin. Other states will seek to follow suit. A little talked about provision of Walker's bill is that it would cut off $834 million in funding to the public school system. This would effectively cripple public schools already underfunded and double class sizes. Voters, are you happy now? But wait there's more.

The Walker Budget bill expands the school voucher program to rich kids who want to attend private school and have the state government pay for part of their tuition. The voucher program was a poison pill started ostensibly to help poor black kids get a better education. But Walker's bill would let anyone regardless of income get a government voucher for private school tuition at the same time he is defunding the public school system. This is from the Milwaukee Wisconsin Journal Sentinel:

Voucher advocates have made clear for more than 20 years that their goal is to replace public education with a system of universal vouchers that includes private and religious schools.

The heartbreaking drama currently playing in Milwaukee - millions of dollars cut from the public schools while vouchers are expanded so wealthy families can attend private schools in the suburbs - may be coming soon to a school district near you.

...

The voucher program started in 1990, billed as an altruistic effort to help a few struggling community schools serving mostly poor black kids. There were only seven schools and 300 students, with the program costing $700,000. To most legislators, it seemed a worthwhile effort, sort of like throwing a few dollars in the church missionary basket.

Even then, however, backers, such as Milwaukee's Bradley Foundation, envisioned a full-scale voucher program. Michael Joyce, the late head of the foundation, made no secret of his belief that public schools were akin to socialism. Vouchers were his free-market alternative.

Bit by bit, budget by budget - as part of a long-term strategy - the program grew. The expansions always were couched in fine-sounding rhetoric that cloaked the program's harm to public education.

This year, taxpayers are paying $131 million for the private school tuition of 21,000 students - making vouchers, in essence, one of the state's largest school districts, on par with Madison, Racine, Kenosha and Green Bay. With the expansion, vouchers will become the state's second-largest district, just behind Milwaukee.

All along, hard-core voucher proponents were using poor black kids as pawns in their voucher chess game. More than a decade ago, a strategy paper for the Milton and Rose D. Friedman Foundation likened vouchers for low-income children to a "viable beachhead," a way "to win and hold new ground in the long march to universal school choice."

Today, in Milwaukee, that long march is just about over. Vouchers are to be open, eventually, to any Milwaukee family, no matter how rich, to attend a private school anywhere in the county. The children of Milwaukee millionaires could conceivably receive $6,442 next year to help pay the $20,423 high school tuition at the private University School.

The Walker budget goes out of its way to help voucher schools and harm Milwaukee Public Schools. While voucher funding will increase, with no limit on how much, MPS faces untold millions in budget cuts. Some of those cuts are directly due to vouchers, which reduce the amount of state aid MPS otherwise would receive.

Milwaukee taxpayers, meanwhile, are forced to pick up the tab for more than a third of the voucher bill; already they pay $50 million a year.

Overall, Walker is cutting $834 million in public education - eliminating state funding for school nurses, Advanced Placement courses, alternative education and children at-risk programs. There are also significant cuts in programs such as the school breakfast program, Head Start and bilingual aid. Funding for special education and other essential programs is flat, with no additional money even if need increases.

...

Taken as a whole, the Walker budget is a blueprint for expanding private schools and destroying public schools. And there's nothing to stop this tragedy from spreading to the entire state.

Unless, of course, legislators do the right thing and protect the American dream of a free and public education for all children.

So in addition to busting unions and privatizing the state's power plants, Walker's stealth plan includes defunding public schools and using the state's supposedly limited resources to fund an unlimited voucher program that pays part of a wealthy kid's tuition at a private school. Of course, poor kids will hardly be able to take advantage of Walker's Brave New World voucher program as they won't be able to afford the rest of the tuition. They will have served their purpose as "beachhead establishers." Again government taxpayer funds are used to help the wealthy at a time in which there is supposedly a budget crisis. But wait there's more. Walker's ginned up, phony "financial crisis" was brought on in the first place by his having given $140 million in tax cuts to corporations just after taking office. Then like Chicken Little he rushed out to announce that there was a $137 million budget deficit and draconian measures including busting unions, privatizing power plants and the public school system, screwing with BadgerCare and making elected state officeholders political appointees would of necessity have to be taken. Er, Walker you could rescind those tax breaks to your cronies... Just a thought.

Well, what does all this have to do with my main theme that Walker's power play of union busting and privatizing will look like child's play compared to what will happen on a national scale after Republicans win big in 2012? Simply this: if with a stroke of a pen Walker could reverse 50 years of progress in workers' rights, with the stroke of a pen the new Republican President backed by a Republican House and Senate (not to mention a Republican Supreme Court) can with a stroke of a pen put an end to Social Security and Medicare. The precedent has already been established that, despite a worker's having paid into social security over a lifetime, he or she has no constitutionally protected right to any of that money. Congress has the right to change the laws governing Social Security and Medicare at any time that they so choose.

"The fact that workers contribute to the Social Security program's funding through a dedicated payroll tax establishes a unique connection between those tax payments and future benefits. More so than general federal income taxes can be said to establish 'rights' to certain government services. This is often expressed in the idea that Social Security benefits are 'an earned right.' This is true enough in a moral and political sense. But like all federal entitlement programs, Congress can change the rules regarding eligibility--and it has done so many times over the years. The rules can be made more generous, or they can be made more restrictive. Benefits which are granted at one time can be withdrawn, as for example with student benefits, which were substantially scaled-back in the 1983 Amendments.

"There has been a temptation throughout the program's history for some people to suppose that their FICA payroll taxes entitle them to a benefit in a legal, contractual sense. That is to say, if a person makes FICA contributions over a number of years, Congress cannot, according to this reasoning, change the rules in such a way that deprives a contributor of a promised future benefit. Under this reasoning, benefits under Social Security could probably only be increased, never decreased, if the Act could be amended at all. Congress clearly had no such limitation in mind when crafting the law. Section 1104 of the 1935 Act, entitled 'RESERVATION OF POWER,' specifically said: 'The right to alter, amend, or repeal any provision of this Act is hereby reserved to the Congress.' Even so, some have thought that this reservation was in some way unconstitutional. This is the issue finally settled by Flemming v. Nestor.

"In this 1960 Supreme Court decision Nestor's denial of benefits was upheld even though he had contributed to the program for 19 years and was already receiving benefits. Under a 1954 law, Social Security benefits were denied to persons deported for, among other things, having been a member of the Communist party. Accordingly, Mr. Nestor's benefits were terminated. He appealed the termination arguing, among other claims, that promised Social Security benefits were a contract and that Congress could not renege on that contract. In its ruling, the Court rejected this argument and established the principle that entitlement to Social Security benefits is not contractual right."

So these rights could go out the window with a stroke of a pen regardless of whether or not it had even been an issue in the campaign. And, although it is unthinkable to the average middle class American, Social Security benefits could be abruptly ended for everyone including current recipients with the stroke of a pen. It's not unthinkable, and the thinkable is definitely possible. Did Scott Walker make union busting a campaign issue? Of course not. The plan was to bust the unions, privatize the power plants and school system on a stealth basis before anyone knew what hit them. Thanks to the 14 Democratic Senators who absconded from Wisconsin, it didn't quite turn out that way. But that will not prevent Republicans from abolishing Social Security and Medicare when they gain control over the national governmental apparatus in 2012.

So voters and Tea Partiers, I ask again will you be happy then? After you have given total control of the US government to Republicans and they have ruined the public education system, privatized everything they can get their hands on and ended Social Security and Medicare? Of course they will be happy because Rush Limpballs, Glenn Beck, Fox News and assorted hate mongers will tell them that they have practically entered the Promised Land of Low Taxes and Small Government (except for the military-industrial complex). The billionaire Koch brothers will use their billions to run ads convincing voters of how happy they will be if only they will elect a Republican President in 2012 along with Republican majorities in the House and Senate. And like lemmings, Tea Partiers will follow them off the cliff. And all those mooches on taxpayer's money - the welfare queens, seniors and poor people - forget them. They are losers who should go out and get a job.

October 30, 2010

All indications are that the electorate, fed up with the way things are going in Washington, will vote the Democrats out and Republicans in next Tuesday. Does this make any sense? Shouldn't we stop and ask ourselves why there has been so little progress in Washington? Republicans in the Senate voted "No" on virtually every piece of legislation Democrats brought forth. They filibustered anything and everything on the theory that nothing would get done, people would get dissatisfied and vote out the people who were trying to accomplish something and vote in the party who obstructed every attempt at progress. Sure enough, it appears that they were right. People dissatisfied with a lack of progress are about to vote into office the very party responsible for that lack of progress. Is this insane or what?

Does the voting public even look beneath the surface as to what's going on in Washington? If so they would surely have seen that the Republican strategy was and is to defeat Obama at every turn regardless of how much good his policies would be for the country. Obama certainly doesn't have all the answers and his big mistake, in my opinion, was to cater too much to Republicans and conservatives in the first place. In the prevailing climate the notion of bipartisanship is a joke. Republicans and some Democrats are so venal and self-serving that their only goal is to serve their corporate masters and lap up their financial rewards when they leave Congress to become lobbyists. Obama watered down many of his initiatives in the hopes of winning over some Republcicans. It didn't really work as a general policy. On other issues he adopted more or less the conservative approach despite the abysmal record that 30 years of Reaganism and Bushism has left in its wake. Reagan and Bush policies have created a nation which for all intents and purposes has joined the Third World. Before Reagan took over, the US was a manufacturing nation that was a net creditor. Now all the manufacturing jobs have left for Asia and the US is a debtor nation like no other still trading on the fact that the dollar is the world's reserve currency. Some day we'll realize that that was more of a curse than a blessing because it only allows us to go deeper and deeper into debt.

Obama's big mistake though was failing to properly analyze the causes of the Great Recession. He and the Democrats thought the country would bounce back if only the banking system was not allowed to disintegrate. The result was that they bailed out Wall Street but failed to give much help to Main Street. Of course, Republicans were basically happy with this result but they wouldn't go so far as to give Obama any credit. Much to the current administration's dismay, the economy did not bounce back. Unemployment remains at ridiculous levels with the unemployed losing their houses in record numbers. Foreclosures continue apace. The combination of lack of jobs and people getting kicked out of their homes represents the bankruptcy of the Obama administration's approach to getting the economy back on track. But if the American public thinks the Republicans, having been voted into office and the Democrats thrown out, will do any better, they have another think coming. The Republican approach will be to accelerate joblessness and homelessness. Under the Republicans, the safety net will be shredded totally. The growing transfer of wealth from the poor and middle class to the rich will increase.

So what is the public thinkling? If they think that voting the Republicans in will save their jobs or their houses, they are absolutely nuts. The Republicans will revert to the policies of Reagan and Bush which have been tantamount to the destruction of the US economy. Jobs will continue to be outsourced. The unemployed will have their benefits reduced. The long term unemployed will be cut off completely. Any public program that benefits the poor will be eliminated. The hollowing out of the middle class will continue on steroids. While Obama and the Democrats have been reluctant to analyze the structural changes that Bush and Reagan policies have brought about and to propose anything too radical in terms of correcting them, Republicans having regained power will do all they can to run the economy into the ditch again. They will transfer wealth from poor to rich with a vengeance. They will ramp up the War Department and spend more trillions in futile battlefield endeavors and foreign adventurism. They will do all they can to put an end to social security and Medicare.

Is this what the public really wants? Don't they understand that Republican policies of the last 30 years are the problem, not the solution. Do they really want a return to those policies? If so, they will have to bear the responsibility for hastening the destruction of the US as a democratic, largely middle class nation and turning it into a corporatist state where the former middle class will have to get used to the role of being peons and peasants. They will have been responsible for hastening their own demise.

October 19, 2010

The Perfect Storm

It’s a perfect storm. And I’m not talking about the impending dangers facing Democrats. I’m talking about the dangers facing our democracy.

First, income in America is now more concentrated in fewer hands than it’s been in 80 years. Almost a quarter of total income generated in the United States is going to the top 1 percent of Americans.

The top one-tenth of one percent of Americans now earn as much as the bottom 120 million of us.

Who are these people? With the exception of a few entrepreneurs like Bill Gates, they’re top executives of big corporations and Wall Street, hedge-fund managers, and private equity managers. They include the Koch brothers, whose wealth increased by billions last year, and who are now funding tea party candidates across the nation.

Which gets us to the second part of the perfect storm. A relatively few Americans are buying our democracy as never before. And they’re doing it completely in secret.

Hundreds of millions of dollars are pouring into advertisements for and against candidates — without a trace of where the dollars are coming from. They’re laundered through a handful of groups. Fred Maleck, whom you may remember as deputy director of Richard Nixon’s notorious Committee to Reelect the President (dubbed Creep in the Watergate scandal), is running one of them. Republican operative Karl Rove runs another. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, a third.

The Supreme Court’s Citizens United vs. the Federal Election Commission made it possible. The Federal Election Commission says only 32 percent of groups paying for election ads are disclosing the names of their donors. By comparison, in the 2006 midterm, 97 percent disclosed; in 2008, almost half disclosed.

We’re back to the late 19th century when the lackeys of robber barons literally deposited sacks of cash on the desks of friendly legislators. The public never knew who was bribing whom.

Just before it recessed the House passed a bill that would require that the names of all such donors be publicly disclosed. But it couldn’t get through the Senate. Every Republican voted against it. (To see how far the GOP has come, nearly ten years ago campaign disclosure was supported by 48 of 54 Republican senators.)

Here’s the third part of the perfect storm. Most Americans are in trouble. Their jobs, incomes, savings, and even homes are on the line. They need a government that’s working for them, not for the privileged and the powerful.

Yet their state and local taxes are rising. And their services are being cut. Teachers and firefighters are being laid off. The roads and bridges they count on are crumbling, pipelines are leaking, schools are dilapidated, and public libraries are being shut.

There’s no jobs bill to speak of. No WPA to hire those who can’t find jobs in the private sector. Unemployment insurance doesn’t reach half of the unemployed.

Washington says nothing can be done. There’s no money left.

No money? The marginal income tax rate on the very rich is the lowest it’s been in more than 80 years. Under President Dwight Eisenhower (who no one would have accused of being a radical) it was 91 percent. Now it’s 36 percent. Congress is even fighting over whether to end the temporary Bush tax cut for the rich and return them to the Clinton top tax of 39 percent.

Much of the income of the highest earners is treated as capital gains, anyway — subject to a 15 percent tax. The typical hedge-fund and private-equity manager paid only 17 percent last year. Their earnings were not exactly modest. The top 15 hedge-fund managers earned an average of $1 billion.

Congress won’t even return to the estate tax in place during the Clinton administration – which applied only to those in the top 2 percent of incomes.

It won’t limit the tax deductions of the very rich, which include interest payments on multi-million dollar mortgages. (Yet Wall Street refuses to allow homeowners who can’t meet mortgage payments to include their primary residence in personal bankruptcy.)

There’s plenty of money to help stranded Americans, just not the political will to raise it. And at the rate secret money is flooding our political system, even less political will in the future.

The perfect storm: An unprecedented concentration of income and wealth at the top; a record amount of secret money flooding our democracy; and a public becoming increasingly angry and cynical about a government that’s raising its taxes, reducing its services, and unable to get it back to work.

We’re losing our democracy to a different system. It’s called plutocracy.

August 29, 2010

Two-Faced Corporate Personhood: Elected and Convicted

by Donna Smith

Forgive me for being a tad confused. I am finding it difficult to understand why one person goes to jail for privately selling an appointment for elected office while others have a legal right to buy their elected positions. The U.S. Supreme Court says corporations are persons in terms of exercising free speech through political contributions. Other persons who behave more like corporations than persons are spending personal fortunes buying positions of power in the public sector.

Meg Whitman is working hard to buy the governorship of California. Rick Scott is doing the same in Florida. Millions and millions of dollars of their own personal fortunes have already been spent in their primary battles and both plan to spend "whatever it takes" to win. In both states, the good that could be accomplished with what these two corporate born and bred candidates are spending to win their elections points to how insane our election process has become.

In contrast, former Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich faces another trial and millions in public funds will be spent trying to convict him of selling his favor in the appointment of a new U.S. Senator to Barack Obama's seat after the 2008 Presidential election.

We call selling a political office a crime; we don't seem to mind buying those same seats.

Don't get me wrong, I don't like what Blagojevich purportedly did. In fact, I am annoyed beyond what is probably reasonable that the former governor of my home state of Illinois makes the appointment process seem so ugly and tawdry. Illinois just doesn't need any more corruption scandals. There are millions of wonderful, honest people in Illinois who deserve the best of governance.

Is it acceptable if a corporation contributes huge amounts of money with the intent of gaining political and policy favor? It certainly is legal. In fact, the Supreme Court said we violate the "corporate person's" First Amendment rights to free speech if we limit their spending on campaigns and issues.

But wait. Suggest that the same political or policy favor will be granted during a private phone conversation and you may go to prison?

Is it just that we object to being left out of the secret transactions? Do we think the public purchase of our democracy by corporate persons like Whitman and Scott is somehow more ethical?

Meg Whitman didn't care enough about the political process to vote much at all over the past three decades. Many California women are offended by that after women fought and suffered to secure the right to vote in this nation just 90 years ago. See one report about the action in Sacramento during which thousands of women expressed their views on the non-voting Whitman: http://www.vcstar.com/news/2010/aug/26/nurses-spotlight-womens-right-to-vote-and-voting/

Whitman has admitted her registration and voting history is terrible but says talking about it now is a distraction. And furthermore, she's showing up now, so what's the problem? Her disconnect with the people of California and the way they have to work and live is appalling and her disregard for the seriousness of being an active participant in one's own governance through exercising the right to vote shows a level of arrogance and cynicism that is nauseating.

Rick Scott is a self-funded, rich candidate of quite another sort. He wants to govern Florida. He was at the helm of a huge healthcare corporation at a time when that corporation perpetrated the most serious Medicare fraud in this nation's history. Do I need to repeat? He was in charge of a company that profited illegally by defrauding the federal Medicare program. Some of the personal wealth he is using now to buy the Florida governorship was acquired while his corporation was bilking the taxpayers of Florida and of the nation.

Scott takes no personal responsibility for the Medicare fraud discovered under his corporate watch. Does that give the people of Florida a clue as to what kind of responsibility he'll take for ethical governance of their state or for any policy failings? He expresses disdain for anything government -- especially government healthcare. That's interesting in that he sure loved the Medicare dollars that helped him amass his own fortune. Medicare dollars are taxpayer dollars -- government dollars. Scott's arrogance, his belief that voters are too stupid to connect the dots between his "I-hate-big-government" propaganda and his "I-love-big-government money" financial success story, and his cynicism are nauseating.

What are we doing? Could we explain how money works in this political process to any other sane society? Buy an office? Legal. Sell an office? Go to prison. Tell us you will buy our votes? Legal. Actually pay us for our votes? Illegal. Corporate personhood? The right to unlimited free speech protected by the Constitution. Private personhood? Taken for a fool.